Madras High Court
The Director General Of Police vs C.Aruldhas on 9 April, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4949 of 2020
1.The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chennai-4
2.The Superintendent of Police
Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil ... Appellants
-vs-
C.Aruldhas ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 17.02.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.1398 of 2015, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kishore
___________
Page 1 of 5
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This writ appeal by the Director General of Police and another,
respondents in W.P.(MD) No.1398 of 2015, is directed against the order dated
17.02.2020 passed in the said writ petition, by which, the learned Single
Bench directed the respondent / writ petitioner to be promoted to the post of
Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 17.11.2013. This direction
was based on the finding rendered by the learned Writ Court in Paragraph No.
7 to the effect that on the crucial date for promotion i.e. one year from
17.11.2013, there was no punishment awarded against the respondent / writ
petitioner.
2. After elaborately hearing Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.C.Kishore, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner and carefully perusing
the material papers placed before us, we find that the learned Writ Court has
committed a factual mistake, which led to the filing of this appeal. We say so,
because the respondent / writ petitioner has suffered two punishments in his
career at the relevant time. The first punishment was postponment of
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
increment for three years without cumulative effect vide P.R.No.86 of 2000,
dated 07.08.2000 and consequently, he could not be considered for promotion
for a period of five years as it would fell within the check period. The second
punishment suffered by the respondent / writ petitioner was postponment of
increment for a period of one year, which shall not operate to postpone his
future increments vide P.R.No.57 of 2011, dated 08.02.2012. On the crucial
date for being considered for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police,
the punishment was in currency. Rather, to put it slightly different, the
second punishment fell within the check period of five years and taking note of
the date of delinquency i.e. 24.11.2010, the respondent / writ petitioner would
become eligible for being considered only in the year 2015. This position is
clear from the amendment which has been made to Rule 4(a) of the General
Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services vide G.O.Ms.No.22,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.02.2014.
Therefore, the respondent / writ petitioner would be eligible to be considered
for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police with effect from 01.12.2015
and not earlier.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
3. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is allowed and the
directions issued in the impugned order dated 17.02.2020 in W.P.(MD) No.
1398 of 2015 are set aside. Since till date the respondent / writ petitioner has
not been considered for upgradation as Special Sub Inspector of Police, we
direct the appellants to consider his case for upgradation as Special Sub
Inspector of Police with effect from 01.12.2015, if he is found to be otherwise
eligible. This direction be complied with within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
09.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may
be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.909 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.4949 of 2020
09.04.2021
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
